Does cooking always create mutagens?

[Mark]

Freeacnebook.com states (chapter 45)-
"...cooking always creates mutagenic and toxic heterocyclic amines."

Elsewhere on waisays.com-
"In any heated food, HCA are formed."

But I have found evidence to the contrary here-
http://www.benbest.com/health/cooking.html

"...stewing, steaming and poaching show little or no mutagenic activity."

Also, on this site http://www.llnl.gov/str/FoodSection3.html
it seems that even with frying, beef patties cooked quickly at a low teperature were free of HCA's-

"We found no detectable heterocyclic amines after frying at 150°C for 2 to 4 minutes."

Does anyone have proof that cooking meat ALWAYS creates HCA's?

[nick]

This report has some interesting info on the formation of HCA.
Of course, less time on the heater will produce less HCA.
But everybodies risk factor to cancer is different. Check your family tree.

NCI Report

[RRM]

I have found evidence to the contrary here-
http://www.benbest.com/health/cooking.html "...stewing, steaming and poaching show little or no mutagenic activity."

Is this evidence that cooking not always creates toxins?
On the contrary: its just proof that compared with more intensive heating, little heating originates only little toxins.
Life is not a single test. Life is not about statistically significant numbers in one test, but the accumulation of all those 'statistically insignificant' numbers into steadily growing numbers. Life with cooking your food is about ingesting toxic molecules every single day. Even though the number is very small if the processing methods are only stewing, steaming or poaching, you will still ingest them on a daily basis, with accumulating damage done to cells, increasing the eventual risk of cancer day after day after day.
In that very same study it was concluded that yes, meat and fish consumption contributed the most (+/- 80%) to total incremental risk, but what about those other 20%?
From 'low risk foods'?

True, not all cooked food-eaters get cancer, just like not everybody who smokes cigarettes will get lungcancer. But ingesting mutagenics on a daily basis will certainly increase cancer risk.

Does anyone have proof that cooking meat ALWAYS creates HCA's?

Yes. Take any study about the effects of cooking on the level of mutagenic activity. Right from the start of the cooking-proces, you will see an increase in mutagenic activity.
Take wheat-gluten for example, figure 9:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/FoodSection3.html

There is not one study in which this increase = 0.
They all show an ascending line. Only to what degree is what differs.

Also, on this site http://www.llnl.gov/str/FoodSection3.html
it seems that even with frying, beef patties cooked quickly at a low teperature were free of HCA's-

"We found no detectable heterocyclic amines after frying at 150°C for 2 to 4 minutes."

For the HCA they have looked for, for the procedure they used, in the samples they studied. Yes, the number will be much lower, since the cooking process only just had started, but every study shows an ascending line, right from the start.
Frying has been shown to always originate HCA, and its not that only after a given time these HCA originate. Its just that the longer the cooking time, the more HCA can be detected.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RRM:
Is this evidence that cooking not always creates toxins?

Yes!
If researchers specifically test for mutagens and they find none, then that certainly counts as evidence!

...Life is not about statistically significant numbers in one test,...

I quoted two tests.

Take any study about the effects of cooking on the level of mutagenic activity. Right from the start of the cooking-proces, you will see an increase in mutagenic activity.
There is not one study in which this increase = 0.
They all show an ascending line...
Frying has been shown to always originate HCA, and its not that only after a given time these HCA originate.

All of these assertions are wrong.
Take the study of frying beef. http://www.llnl.gov/str/FoodSection3.html
It took longer than 2 minutes for any mutagens to be detected.
The line was flat from 0 to 2 minutes.
Only after that time did the line begin ascending.

[Mark]

I was referring to the beef fried at 150C.

[RRM]

Yes!
If researchers specifically test for mutagens and they find none, then that certainly counts as evidence!

No. These samples are small, because checking an entire human meal would be way too expensive and time-consuming.
"Little or no mutagenic activity" means that in the Ames/Salmonella assay, which is designed for investigating substances, and not entire meals (in which the suspected compounds are amongst huge numbers of molecules), the chances of mutagens evoking Salmonella tester strain responses are minimal, and yet some ("little")response was evoked.

If you could somehow extract the HCA from that meal, you certainly would find lots of mutagenic activity.

Its impossible that no mutagens at all have formed in such a meal. To detect small numbers of mutagens in a meal in a test is not easy, while its sure that those mutagens will affect cells in your body.

I quoted two tests.

Yes, and one of these even showed some mutagenic activity.

It took longer than 2 minutes for any mutagens to be detected.

That is exactly right: "to be detected"
Which does not say anything about the exact number of mutagens present in that piece of shortly fried beef!!!

The line was flat from 0 to 2 minutes. Only after that time did the line begin ascending.

Yes, but you are talking about whole food analysis.
When you take into account the compounds actually involved in the origination of mutagenics, and see what happens with these right after the start of the cooking process, you can detect mutagens right from the start.
The essence here is: DETECTION.

If a cop is watching a crowd and he sees no pickpockets, does that mean there aren't any?
No, it means he didn't DETECT one.
The policeman should watch the guy thats a known pickpocket, and THEN you can tell whether that guy was active in those circumstances.

("known pickpocket" = compounds known to form mutagens under the influence of heat)

The Ames/Salmonella mutagenicity test is not about detecting thieves in a crowd, but about testing thieves on their behavior.

So, you either should test every single compound present in a food-sample on mutagenic activity, OR you should take the proteins, other nitrogen containing compounds, creatin(in) and carbs present in a food sample, and see what happens under the influence of heat.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RRM:

"...you should take the proteins, other nitrogen containing compounds, creatin(in) and carbs present in a food sample, and see what happens under the influence of heat.

OK then, from here- http://www.benbest.com/health/cooking.html

"When a mixture of glycine, creatine and glucose was heated at 140ºC for 15 minutes, no significant mutagenic activity was produced..."

[RRM]

The amino acids and amines you should take, are the cyclic ones, which are the ones that readily form the HeteroCyclicAmines (HCA): tryptophan, tyramine, serotonine, tryptamine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, dopamine...

Glycine is a very short, simple, non-cyclic amino acid.
Cyclic amines / amino acids are present in all foods (grains, vegetables, fruits, meat etc).

[Oscar]

Thanks for the info! <img src="http://www.dance4mation.com/images/emot ... iley34.gif" alt=" - " />